5 comments:

Opposition against the park in Kentucky is based on rational arguments (i.e. misappropriation of tax incentives and bad PR for the state), opposition against the mosque was not (i.e. it was based on people feeling upset about a moderate place of worship not associated with the terrorist attacks in any way save for sharing the same basic religion).

Martin,I have read some critiques of the project, but that's not to say they are in opposition, which are two different things. The Courier-Journal (I suppose they are one of the major sources of criticism you are referring to) has been critical but I don't recall reading anything that says it shouldn't be built. In fact, they are raising some good questions, such as the estimate of attendance. 1.6 million visitors? That's ridiculous. When Six Flags couldn't draw that many in a metro area how do they come up with such a number? The creation museum, which looks well done in terms of design, only draws half that, and it is located close to an urban area. The backers of the ark project haven't even let the state see most of their studies and information. The state shouldn't make any decision without seeing the information the project's backers have. I don't oppose the project receiving tax incentives, and I don't think it is illegal for the state to offer them, but I'll make you a wager - if this park gets built in Kentucky, as advertised, I'll pay you admission to visit and buy your lunch.

I don't have any problem with anyone exercising their 1st Amendment right to practice their religion, as long as they don't expect me to pay for it as a taxpayer. Of course, I am free to exercise my 1st Amendment rights to point out that it is a lie to claim that anyone is building a Mosque at Ground Zero, and that the beliefs of the people building the Theme Park are demonstrably false. I can guarantee that you won't see the kind of vicious, lying, hate-filled campaign against the Theme Park that we have seen conducted against the Islamic Community Center in New York.